The Evolution Challenge

[Cabal]

It might appear I often counter AV's post but that's only because his claims are a unique combination of being the most ridiculous while also being the easiest to refute.

That, and the sheer quantity of them too.....

 

[Tiberius]

So, getting back to the topic, has there ever been anything found which evolution says is impossible? Anything that actually falsifies evolution?

 

[USincognito]

So, getting back to the topic, has there ever been anything found which evolution says is impossible? Anything that actually falsifies evolution?

There are plenty of possibilities, but thus far no. Nor are we likely to.

 

[gaara4158]

That's funny, because if a kangaroo would indeed suddenly give birth to an aligator I think it would convince more atheists to seriously consider the possibility of a god.

I lol'd!

 

[Tiberius]

There are plenty of possibilities, but thus far no. Nor are we likely to.

Plenty of possibilities? Such as?

 

[Hespera]

Plenty of possibilities? Such as?

I think that technically there are no possibilities at all since nothing can falsify something that is true.

There are of course some few "dinosaurs" who would dispute that... do in fact dispute it! Not that they ever come with any facts.

One argument we see here is that the ToE just modifies the theory to accommodate anything that might serve to falsify. That isnt how it works of course but try to change someone's set idea!

There are lots of possibilities (if you grant that they are possible) that would falsify ToE in anything resembling its present form. Probalby kick it out completely other than the bit of "microevolution" that seems acceptable to the most hardcore theists.

The one thing I can think of that would do this best would be if someone found an assemblage of fossils such as might have been swept together by the "flood". Get me Dimetrodon, trilobite, chicken, donkey, wolly mammoth, eyrypterid, Neanderthal, etc, some assemblage like that;
maybe a protoceratops with a triceratops and an Eohippus with a modern horse. Get some such assemblage as that in one fossil bed and I will say the jig is up on evolution and that geological dating is full of Indricotherium droppings.

Of course, if Peter Pan shows up in my apartment window and asks if I'd like to go to never never land that will also shake up my beliefs. And hey, I might end up getting that tropical vacation that I THOUGHT I was getting for spring break...

 

[USincognito]

Plenty of possibilities? Such as?

See my OP here. Though, like I said, I doubt we'll find anything even close to these.

And Hespera's example of a jumbled out of time fossil bed is excellent.

 

[Tiberius]

Yeah, the clasic example of fossil bunnies in Precambrian rocks would certainly do the job.

 

[Doveaman]

Evolution is a scientific theory. That means a few things.

• It means that it is an explanation which was formed by examining the evidence available.
• it means that it makes predictions about things we don't yet know.
• And it means that it is falsifiable.

While there is great scope for discussion on each of those three points, I'd like this thread to deal with solely the last point. The falsifiability of evolution.

First of all, let's make sure we all know what I mean when i say that evolution is falsifiable.

I mean that some evidence, some piece of information can be shown that is unable to be explained by evolution - indeed, the evolution says is impossible - thus showing that evolution is false.

An example of this is a fossil of a bunny in the precambrian. Evolutonary theory says that rabbits could not possibly have been alive in the precambrian period. Thus, finding an authentic fossil rabbit in precambrian rocks would nicely show that evolution can't possibly be true.

Therein lies my challenge.

Given a valid understanding of the theory of evolution, can anyone provide any evidence for something which has falsified evolution?

As far as I am aware, no such evidence has ever been found. However, creationists love to point out that evolution can't be correct. Well, here's your chance. If you claim that evolution is false, show us where it has been falsified.

Why spend time trying to prove something to be false that has not yet been proven to be true. I think that's the real challenge; it must first be proven to be true.

 

[atomweaver]

Why spend time trying to prove something to be false that has not yet been proven to be true. I think that's the real challenge; it must first be proven to be true.

Its already true enough that millions of people entrust their health to it on a regular basis, yourself included. How much more 'proven' do you require?


ETA: Thread necromancy... gaah. Why creationists dig up cadavers is beyond me. Are they like thousand year eggs? Do they taste better to some of you after a few months in the ground?

 

[Cabal]

Why spend time trying to prove something to be false that has not yet been proven to be true. I think that's the real challenge; it must first be proven to be true.

No, when Tiberius says "falsified evolution" he's referring to the scientific definition of a theory - a theory is something which has to be falsifiable, like the theory of evolution in its current form. He then asks for examples of actual data which does this.

And evolution has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt - no falsifiable data has been found, otherwise this would have been a very short thread. Compare this to YEC's track record, and evolution is miles out in front.

 

[Hespera]

Why spend time trying to prove something to be false that has not yet been proven to be true. I think that's the real challenge; it must first be proven to be true.

Think ofhow it would work in court. the prosecution tries to show beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty.

He has a mass of evidence, all of it all of it says you are guilty as sin.

Ok! You will be convicted, if you just say "oh it is not PROVEN to be true; why should i submit any evidence against it?"

Also, please.... this is old as the hills.... science never proves any theory. Never will. That is not how reality works. But, the theory behind your computer seems to work very well. if you want to say the theory is false, and therefore your comp does not work, go ahead.

prove it.

 

[Doveaman]

Think ofhow it would work in court. the prosecution tries to show beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty.

He has a mass of evidence, all of it all of it says you are guilty as sin.

Ok! You will be convicted, if you just say "oh it is not PROVEN to be true; why should i submit any evidence against it?"

Also, please.... this is old as the hills.... science never proves any theory. Never will. That is not how reality works. But, the theory behind your computer seems to work very well. if you want to say the theory is false, and therefore your comp does not work, go ahead.

prove it.

A lot of innocent people were condemned to death based on so called evidence.

The evidence was not the problem; it was man's ignorance in trying to understand the evidence.

Man is just as ignorant when it comes to his efforts to understand the so called evidence for evolution.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why spend time trying to prove something to be false that has not yet been proven to be true. I think that's the real challenge; it must first be proven to be true.

But... that's not... you can't... it doesn't...

 

[Hespera]

A lot of innocent people were condemned to death based on so called evidence.

The evidence was not the problem; it was man's ignorance in trying to understand the evidence.

Man is just as ignorant when it comes to his efforts to understand the so called evidence for evolution.

Well suit yourself. But you are just saying that out of total and coimplete ignorance. Unless you care to be specific? name something that is being misunderstood? The fact that you refer to it as "so called" says to me that you cant come up with anything.

 

[Doveaman]

No, when Tiberius says "falsified evolution" he's referring to the scientific definition of a theory - a theory is something which has to be falsifiable, like the theory of evolution in its current form. He then asks for examples of actual data which does this.

And evolution has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt

The evolution of man from beast is impossible to prove. We can only speculate on so called evidence.

Evolution is just a whole bunch of speculation beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Doveaman]

Well suit yourself. But you are just saying that out of total and coimplete ignorance. Unless you care to be specific? name something that is being misunderstood? The fact that you refer to it as "so called" says to me that you cant come up with anything.

When you can show me a man evolving from some kind of animal then I'll be convince about evolution.

 

[Doveaman]

Its already true enough that millions of people entrust their health to it on a regular basis, yourself included. How much more 'proven' do you require?

You seem to be describing a new brand of evolution other than the one Darwin described.

Did evolution evolve?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You seem to be describing a new brand of evolution other than the one Darwin described..

Well, yes: we've developed heavily since Darwin. 140 years if a long time...

 

[Cabal]

The evolution of man from beast is impossible to prove. We can only speculate on so called evidence.

Evolution is just a whole bunch of speculation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah, I think you're missing something on this whole debating thing - when you make a point against the norm, the burden of evidence is on you. Although most people are usually courteous enough to supply some backup material anyway.